Posts Tagged ‘revenge’

The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

I was surprised by the emotional path I took through this movie after hearing such a widespread lacklustre response to it elsewhere. I’d been looking forward to it for a long time, since it was announced perhaps, just the idea of Peter Jackson doing a) anything on a “smaller” scale than the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and King Kong and b) something that sounded so tonally like one of my favourites of his, Heavenly Creatures. I was slightly annoyed when Saoirse Ronan was cast in a role that sounded to me (though I hadn’t, and still haven’t, read the book it’s based on) perfect for Dakota Fanning – I don’t even know now if that was a real rumour or wishful thinking from me, lol – in any case, subsequent viewings of Atonement warmed me to her as an actress.

The story’s a simple one, kind of Ghost meets What Dreams May Come: a young girl is murdered and views the aftermath from an “in-between” place between earth and heaven, both her and her family unable to move on. Thoughts of revenge are entertained, the girl able to a point to “touch” the real world and send signals to her father in particular, a boy she fell in love with shortly before the incident, and a fellow schoolgirl who has a kind of sixth sense. The movie deals with grief, loss, and moving on quite beautifully as well as adding (I’m told it’s been added in the adaptation process, anyway) a suspenseful thread of the attempt to identify and bring to justice the killer, played quite frighteningly well by Stanley Tucci.

I gave the movie 4 stars at The Auteurs site immediately after the credits rolled but thought of it as a high 4; however the more I think about it, the higher I think that should have been, I feel I’ve been affected by the strange quantity of negative reviews when I can really see nothing wrong with the movie. There’s a turn the story takes at the end where I felt the ending was going to be crushingly unsatisfying, but even that is fixed (hard to explain without spoiling things). I would put the negativity down to it merely being a bad adaptation and that all these negative opinions are coming from fans of the book but it seems too widespread for that explanation… am I the only person who saw the movie but didn’t read the book?

Maybe it’s that people measure Peter Jackson’s work now with a larger scale. I’m certainly one who tends to compare a great artist’s work with what has come before and rate relatively, but one has to remember that in addition to Heavenly Creatures and The Two Towers, he also made King Kong and The Frighteners, both of which this far outweighs. Maybe it’s just that there have been so many great movies and “must-see” movies in the past year and this one drew the short straw. It goes into my favourites, anyway. Saoirse Ronan is phenomenally haunting in the lead, the visual effects used to portray the in-between a really pleasant surprise (it’s not really much “smaller” in these sections than we’re accustomed to from Jackson lol), and there are other notable supporting performances from the likes of Rose McIver (a Power Ranger, I’ve just read, making her all the more impressive here!) as the girl’s sister, a quite mesmerizing turn by Rachel Weisz as her mother. It is a beautifully haunting, sad, yet ultimately strangely uplifting movie that I look forward to seeing again, perhaps after reading the book. I really don’t understand the underwhelming response elsewhere.



Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

This was another incredibly pleasant (if that’s the right word) surprise. I wouldn’t say I’ve exactly gone off Quentin Tarantino as a director but my initial approach to his films has become increasingly apprehensive since Kill Bill. I thought Kill Bill was perfect in every way, but when the Grindhouse thing came along I thought at first, no that’s taking the Kill Bill “thing” too far … though, of course, Death Proof grew on me with subsequent viewings (at the very least, sitting next to Planet Terror as it does, it appears to be some kind of masterpiece …).

Inglourious Basterds seemed like it was going to have even more problems for me as a viewer. The first being – though of course Tarantino has been planning this movie for over a decade – we’ve had two of these Nazi revenge stories very recently in the form of Defiance and Valkyrie so by now the “genre” almost seems old hat. The difference with Tarantino’s version, however, is the highly fictionalised way his story of WWII turns out. That in itself, however, while others whose reviews I read seemed to revel in the delight of seeing that part of history end the way we may all wish it did, really didn’t interest me so much. Call it the first surprise, then, how “into it” I found myself as the explosive finale goes down.

Second was a similar problem to that I expected to have with Valkyrie – and I loved Valkyrie, so I should’ve have been so concerned. It’s really some of the casting that worried me here – seeing actors like Tom Cruise in Valkyrie or Brad Pitt and worse, Eli Roth, here in period costume, especially in this stylised, fictionalised version of the time, really didn’t look to me like it would work even a fraction as well as it ultimately does. There’s an almost cheeky moment in the very first scene (or “Chapter”) of Inglourious Basterds that seemed to me like a reference or jab at the way Bryan Singer segued into having all his “Germans” speak English for 95% of Valkyrie. Here, a character literally just says to another character that his knowledge of the language they are speaking (French) has been exhausted, does he mind if he switches to English? It’s a clever moment, but it’s ultimately surprising just how much of this movie’s dialogue still needs subtitles, with all dialogue being spoken in the language that makes sense for the scene, and that to me is a Good Thing. Anyway, not for one moment did I have the issues with Pitt and Roth that I expected. For Roth in particular it may in fact be his best-cast role yet. I still don’t like to see him on the screen, I’d much prefer him get behind the camera again … but for this particular character, that works. The Basterds themselves, in fact, don’t occupy as much screentime as you might expect, with as much time given over to Mélanie Laurent and Jacky Ido’s story or the brilliantly wicked Christoph Waltz as the movie’s principal villain. So even if you still find Roth and co. unpalatable, there’s plenty more in the ensemble to get excited about.

Then there’s the soundtrack. Though I’ve never had a problem with Tarantino’s use of music, it’s again an aspect of his work that I’ve worried about more with everything since Kill Bill, where it seemed to me he had pushed it as far as it would go. There was the comment he made about this movie in particular that struck me as particularly arrogant, when asked about his use of archive music, that he didn’t want another artist making a mark on his work. (“I just don’t like the idea of giving that much power to anybody on one of my movies,” LA Times) All of that said, it is hard to think about these things when the movie is in front of you and the likes of Ennio Morricone are serenading your ears. There’s little to say but that what music he uses works … even the Bowie. The only moments where I questioned the soundtrack, in fact, were two short snippets of tunes he had previously used, in Kill Bill, but they’re really too brief to mention.

This is, simply, a terrifically made movie that works almost flawlessly, and I think you’ll find that hard to deny even if you disagree with the idea of it. There are those who still think of Tarantino as some kind of manchild who makes fanboyish movies that serve no purpose than to fulfil geeky fantasies and there’s plenty in all of his recent work including this that matches that description. But there’s too much here – more than ever before in his work – that shows a real artist’s hand. It’s too technically proficient and assured to be dismissed as the B-movie wish-fulfilment it might first appear to be. To be perfectly honest, I’m almost inclined to agree with Brad Pitt’s last line which I’m sure is pretty much Tarantino speaking for himself, and he should be so proud: “This might just be my masterpiece.” On a first viewing I find it hard to disagree, for it truly blew me away.



Unforgiven

Unforgiven

Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

“I guess they had it coming.”
“We all got it coming, kid.”

It’s certainly not as tight as the more recent clutch of Eastwood’s films (excepting Flags and Letters perhaps) and it was probably for that reason that I still remember the first time I saw this movie, bored out of my mind at the age of 17 or so, wondering just why it was considered in so many circles so brilliant. The last time I saw it was on DVD so I’d guess I was early 20s and it was a different movie entirely – maybe the novelty of DVD made me give it that little bit more time but I’d like to think I plain just “got it” more that time.

This might be only the third time I’ve seen it in my life, and it’s a changed film again. I’ve certainly seen it few enough times to always forget just exactly what the story is – I remember an element of revenge, and I remember the powerful message about violence, but I forget the parts Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris and Gene Hackman have to play in it all; I forget the astonishing depiction of the group of women the story revolves around – I was reminded of that camaraderie to be found among the bank girls of Dog Day Afternoon for some reason, just so real in the way they stick by one another and their fearless “leaders”, (in Dog Day, the way the manager opts to go back into the bank despite having the opportunity to escape; here the woman yelling back at the people throwing rocks through the window in protest at their actions).

I’m still struck by the slightly plodding nature of it in places – yet I’m struck by it only because I can’t fathom, in spite of this slowness that would normally turn me off a movie (see Revolutionary Road most recently), why I find myself glued to the screen, catatonic-like, to Eastwood’s completely arresting chunks of film. Here is a film set over a hundred years ago; made almost 20 years ago; but it feels utterly present even as it glows out of a 28” widescreen in the corner.

Again rooting around for someone else’s words to describe this sense I get from Eastwood’s movies (boy, I can’t wait to work through the fistfuls I haven’t seen yet), I turned to Roger Ebert’s review of this movie and found them:

“Not a boring montage of quick cuts and meaningless violence, but a story told through deliberate strategy, in which events may not be possible, but are somehow plausible.”

(lol … Changeling, Million Dollar Baby anyone?) My italics on the deliberate strategy – I think that’s the key to all of Eastwood’s work … he just always works methodically through a particularly muddy issue and emerges with something every time that, though he does address the tricky grey areas, is nevertheless absolute about where he stands; more’s the point, convinces you to side with him. I really think I might be in agreement with others on this one – the guy has made a ton of great movies, but this one is just something else.



Let The Right One In

Let The Right One In

Monday, January 12th, 2009

The good news to me here was I got to see this one quicker than last year’s rave reviewed foreign horror movie [Rec], lol. I did approach it more apprehensively however – my response to all the “best vampire movie ever!” quotes was pretty much, “yeah, sure … because of course every new genre movie released in the past few years has to be immediately the best of its kind,” lol.

Well, it turns out, never mind those comments .. because if this isn’t at least one of the best vampire movies, it’s certainly one of the best young love stories I’ve seen. I wrote the previous sentences before taking a gander at the movie’s IMDb message board (where the boffins reside, don’t you know ;-) ) hoping to find some kind of outraged mention of “the crotch shot” that genuinely took even me aback here, only to discover that in fact what you see appear to be scarred genitals indicating that the (cute! cute!) Eli might, as in the novel, be a boy afterall – there are vague exchanges here and there about “her” gender. What it comes down to in the end, I think, is after 200 years, does it really matter? And y’know what? This makes it an even more beautiful love story to me.

In any case, all I can say right now is this movie ultimately took my breath away, I literally didn’t want it to end and when the final scene closed, I just couldn’t wait to see it again. I’m still uncomfortable with the phrase “best vampire movie ever” because it’s such a peculiarly broad sub-genre – the phrase just doesn’t seem like high enough praise to me on the one hand, and on the other, just doesn’t seem to mean much at all. It’s one of the best horror movies I’ve seen, certainly, and like I said, it was the romance that truly slayed me. The music plays along with this, blending from gripping strings to a tender piano theme.

Yes, it does kinda seem like at last we’ve hit another one of those, “gush, gush, I’ll think about it later – loved it, bye!” reviews on this one, lol. Sometimes I find myself faced with my ridiculous queue of movies to watch and end up doing nothing because I can’t make a decision; then there are movies like this that, as soon as the opportunity arises, I truly drop everything for. The Fall fell into the same category tonight, but this was the one that truly satisfied.



Gran Torino

Gran Torino

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

Well holy cow, finally one more glint of hope in a year of things that “just didn’t quite do it for me”. This movie reminded me a lot of David Mamet’s Redbelt in that, as I suppose is to be expected by now of director Clint Eastwood, there’s simply not a wasted moment from start to finish. The characters are painted in strokes so broad that in any other hands it would be laughable – an old coot, disrespectful yung ‘uns, just about everyone a stick-in-the-mud of some variety, but the overall impact of it all is just impossible to ignore. When news first came out about the movie around this time last year, a lot of people, me included, got excited it could be another Dirty Harry – and frankly, it may as well be. I didn’t see the second half of this movie coming quite so brutally as it does, especially as there are far more lighter, even laugh out loud funny, moments in the first hour than expected. Eastwood is as fantastic in the central role as he is behind the camera – having praised Frank Langella for Nixon I really look forward to the Best Actor category at this year’s Oscars as I simply couldn’t choose between these two amazing performances. This really is one of the best movies I’ve seen this year – and there ain’t many of those. The closing song almost had me in tears as much as the similar song at the end of Grace is Gone.



April Fool’s Day [2008]

April Fool’s Day [2008]

Tuesday, April 1st, 2008

Well, I feel privileged, because the one thing that could ever hope to make this movie part watchable is perhaps watching it on the exact day it takes place, that is, April Fool’s Day 2008 lol. If you haven’t seen the original production that this is a remake of, then it’s possible you might get the one-hit kick off it that I seem to remember I might have as an impressionable 11 year old or whatever age I was when I snook a watch of it with my brother many years ago. On the other hand if you have seen the original, then you know how it’s probably the most pointless and stupid cheat of a horror movie ever made, no matter what its cheese value may be.

I’d been misled into thinking this remake had made big changes in the ending and as soon as I got wind of this, clicking around the ‘net as the movie began, I immediately stopped browsing for fear of spoiling the surprise. Unfortunately, aside from an admittedly hilarious genuine jolt, there’s really no change here. It takes a full 38 minutes to really get going – the pacing is way off, everything up the the graveside scene could and should be covered in 20 minutes max – once it’s in the zone, it works as a direct-to-video slasher I guess, but what kind of praise is that? It has a very tacky plastic 90210 shiny TV people feel to it which is strangely appropriate.

I’m a sucker for event-relevant viewing options and coupled with that one little shocker at the end I can’t entirely dismiss it … but, meh, I’ll be going to the ’86 production on this day in the future …



Cathy’s Curse

Cathy’s Curse

Tuesday, February 19th, 2008

You probably couldn’t get a more precise blending of The Exorcist and The Omen (and, hey, throw Amityville on the pile too) than this if you literally cut them together lol; and a lot of the production values at best leave a lot to be desired, at worst demand the need for new underwear.

But this holds together well enough with decent performances, a proper old creepysad score reminiscent of Christian Gaubert’s for The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane, and, in fact, almost by virtue of those very same production values that will leave a lot of watchers howling. If you’re into obscure 70s horror, you’re in for a treat. Yes, for the second time this evening following certain moments in AVPR, I almost had an accident when Cathy appeared claiming, “My name is Laura“ with what can only be described as sh*t smeared on her face in an hilariously awful attempt to mimic Dick Smith’s makeup on The Exorcist that actually manages to outbad Seytan … but overall, I think it’s some kind of gem to go in the box with the likes of Happy Birthday to Me, Sleepaway Camp II and Slumber Party Massacre II. I should’ve saved it for Halloween, really, but I couldn’t wait.



Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Monday, February 4th, 2008

I had a feeling this would be better a second time, but I don’t know where to begin describing the sensation I felt walking home today. Sometimes, just sometimes, it’s really worth seeing a movie on the largest screen you can find. I’m sure that’s the opposite of what I’ve said elsewhere but hey, I’m saying it.

I had my eyes on Johnny Depp for pretty much the whole movie this time – projected larger than life his performance is even more outstanding than I’d first thought, and though I’d pretty much been swung over to the Daniel Day Lewis camp earlier today seeing some clips from There Will Be Blood, I couldn’t have swung back harder or faster. It’s not just the singing and the face and the accent; what captivated me more than anything here were the full-length shots of Johnny … the way he walks and carries himself, he’s like a silent movie star, it’s all Sweeney and though he’s on the screen almost constantly, I wanted even more of him just standing, brooding.

On occasion my gaze did shift, though, to the other actors; particularly Helena Bonham-Carter, who is also much better than I’d previously thought … watching her just through the “Not While I’m Around” scene, right up to her closing the door on Toby in the bakehouse, is just about as mesmerising and gutwrenching as watching Depp for the rest of the film’s duration.

It is slightly more violent than I’d perceived the first time around (though I’d still stand by what I said about the BBFC – and I was glad to hear Mark Kermode saying much the same a couple of weeks ago on Five Live), but as many have said already, it borders about as much on the ridiculously comic as it’s possible to do without veering completely into nonsense and making a mockery of the rest of the drama; the roll-on effect being that when those crucial deaths occur in the final act, your focus is entirely on the higher meaning of the deaths, and about as far removed from the shower of blood as I think has ever been seen in such a bloody movie.

I didn’t spot Anthony Head’s brief appearance the first time either – it’s truly blink and you’ll miss it, lol. I think he was originally to be one of those who sang “The Ballad of Sweeney Todd” – which I guess I also want to mention again. I’ve grown to love this exclusion – it’s beautiful as underscore and really, as I said in the earlier review, I missed “Kiss Me” much more than anything else. And even that exclusion is still a minor drawback, which along with the slightly hokey, “That’s all very well …” line following “Epiphany” (it’s in the trailer too), is far from enough to counter the fact that this movie is really, quite jawdroppingly, perfect.

7th January, 2008:

NB. I’ve decided to post this now, it’s been sort of hanging back till I see it “properly” ‘cos, as with Rent, my opinion after a first watch felt very muddled but having listened to the soundtrack again the other night, I remembered the one reason I think it really is as good as I wanted it to be and that’s that, basically, it reaches that same crushingly beautiful hollow in the end that I remember from the first time I saw the show / listened to the cast recordings / whatever. I can’t wait to see it again, definitely a birthday present to look forward to :)

———————-

I can’t begin this review without pointing out how ultimately I couldn’t help but approach it on a first viewing the same way I did the Rent movie. It felt almost like a chore, like, I almost just wanted to get the watching of it “out of the way” so I could watch it again if that makes any sense. I wanted to know what was missing, what was new, what was changed, etc, so I could amend my perspective or whatever to get the most out of it. Subsequent viewings of movies like this will always be more enjoyable than the first for me – I don’t like unpleasant surprises much :P Not that there are many here, I hasten to add (the clue is in the star rating if I start to sound like I was disappointed).

I guess I’m surprised now having seen it how universal the praise has been. It’s by no means as conventional an adaptation as they could’ve made it, and the cuts are just as unexpected (“Green Finch and Linnet Bird”, to my joy, remains; while “The Ballad” is used only for instrumental underscore). I love how young Toby is now and Ed Sanders, who plays him, is incredible in the part. And while I’m on the supporting cast I may as well mention Sacha Baron Cohen as Pirelli … even more perfect than I imagined he’d be.

Then there’s the gore. I’m baffled and a little annoyed by having just read that it has been rated ‘18’ here in the UK. To me it makes little sense – even if it’d actually been as violent as I’d been led to expect (which it isn’t) … there is no sex (even the beggar woman’s bawdy taunts are gone – though they’re there on the soundtrack …), no bad language (edit: okay, the “s” word but that’s still PG material …), nothing but blood here for the BBFC to be offended by. And though the ‘18’ certificate isn’t quite the kiss of death the NC-17 rating is in the US, I still think that stopping under-18s from seeing a movie like this … I mean it’s Sondheim for heck’s sake … it sends out the wrong message entirely about what the BBFC’s purpose is. I hope a few councils think to overrule it and let a few school trips get in or something.

Of course, I can’t end this review without mentioning Johnny Depp :) I’d seen bits and pieces of the performance and couldn’t resist sneaking a few tracks of the soundtrack prior to watching the movie, and I knew that the gruff bellowing rage of George Hearn etc was pretty much gone, replaced with Depp’s beautiful but admittedly thin voice. In the context of the whole product, though, there’s far more surprises in his singing than I expected. He actually does come close to the roar of the stage Sweeneys in places, and when he holds the soaring, swooping higher notes, especially alongside Alan Rickman on “Pretty Women”, it’s absolute heaven. The harmonising on the part of the other actors is really impressive too.

See, kind of a flat review and I’m afraid I might sound like I was slightly bored by the movie. Like I said, it was the first look. My anticipation for this movie was massive, I pretty much knew how much I was going to love it. It’s been like a present sitting under the Christmas tree, like I know what it is, I really want it, and now I’ve opened it I’m just looking forward to playing with it again later. If that makes any sense, lol.

One thing I will say is that despite all the buzz etc, and I’ll be continuing my little corner of support for it, I’d be astonished if this was nominated for a lot of Oscars let alone winning any – I keep seeing other hopefuls and just about everytime I find another category I feel Sweeney will be shut out of … even Johnny in the end. It just really doesn’t strike me as that kind of movie, not from any angle I look at it, and there are so many other movies that, no matter what I think, are gonna get a hell of a lot more votes. Like I said – don’t get me wrong, I love it – I’m just kinda surprised that so many other people do too. It seems so grey and grim to me to be getting such love as it is. I feel like they could’ve used the crossover aspects better – the Sondheim fans, the Johnny fans, the gore hounds – they could’ve made it 2 and a half hours, they could’ve really used the Johnnyness, and despite what people are saying .. it could be gorier.

Yes – I’m giving it 5 stars, it’s at the top of my 2007 list, and I’m sitting here saying it could’ve been better, lol. But, like Rent was still “Rent”, y’know: it’s still “Sweeney Todd”. It might not be as definitive a version of the show as I’d hoped for – it feels a little too fast in places jumping from scene to scene (“Kiss Me” would’ve been a particularly helpful inclusion I think towards the end) but it still knocks the socks off anything else seen in the past year. All I can think could be the reason for its success is the thought of those who have never seen or heard of Sweeney Todd. When I think of those people, I almost literally turn green with envy. I guess going into this movie that way, as perhaps many have … that would be a pretty astonishing experience … which is exactly why I’ll be taking the family for my birthday “thing” in February :)